CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-08405.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-08405.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-08405.a1

Jul 11, 2008· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, representing herself, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a significant and prolonged history of financial irresponsibility. The government raised concerns under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 19, citing a lengthy record of unpaid financial obligations.

At the time of the hearing, the applicant still carried a substantial number of delinquent debts. While the applicant claimed to have established repayment arrangements for these outstanding obligations, she failed to provide any supporting documentation to substantiate these claims.

Consequently, the Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 20 mitigating conditions were not applied. The security clearance was denied because the applicant did not present sufficient mitigating evidence to address the government's concerns regarding her financial history and ongoing delinquent debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsThe applicant's mitigating evidence was insufficient to overcome the government's security concerns.

Key Rule Quoted

“The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision.”
— ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 10, 2007
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 2, 2008
Decision dateJul 11, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Documentation to Support Claims of Repayment Arrangements
Weighing of Mitigating Evidence Against Disqualifying Conduct in Security Clearance Cases

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved a denial of a security clearance based on financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and unfair. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error and that the Judge's conclusions were reasonable based on the evidence presented.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline F

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the denial of the security clearance, including a rational connection between the facts and the decision made.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan
Michael D. Hipple
William S. Fields

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline F DIGEST: Applicant has a lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations. As of the Hearing, Applicant still has a significant number of delinquent debts. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-08405.a1 DATE: 07/11/2008 DATE: July 11, 2008 In Re: -------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-08405

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Judge found in favor of Applicant as to SOR paragraphs 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j) and 1(q). Those favorable findings are not at issue on appeal. In his decision, the Judge noted that Applicant claimed to have made repayment arrangements with her remaining creditors, but had not provided any documentation of those arrangements. Decision at 3. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On October 10, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On April 2, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant timely appealed pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.

Applicant asks that the Judge’s adverse decision be reversed, based on a general assertion that it is “unfair.” Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge erred. The presence of some mitigating evidence does not alone compel the Judge to make a favorable security clearance decision. As the trier of fact, the Judge has to weigh the evidence as a whole and decide whether the favorable evidence outweighs the unfavorable evidence, or vice versa. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-10320 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 7, 2007). An applicant’s disagreement with the Judge’s weighing of the evidence, or an ability to argue for a different interpretation of the evidence, is not sufficient to demonstrate the Judge weighed the evidence or reached conclusions in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-17409 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2007). In this case, the Judge found that Applicant had a lengthy and serious history of not meeting financial obligations. At the time of the hearing, Applicant still had a significant number of delinquent debts. In light of the foregoing, the Judge could reasonably conclude that Applicant’s financial problems were still ongoing. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-07747 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2007). The Judge weighed the mitigating evidence offered by Applicant against the length and seriousness of the disqualifying conduct and considered the possible application of relevant conditions and factors. He found in favor of Applicant as to some of the SOR allegations.1 However, he reasonably explained why the evidence which the Applicant had presented in mitigation was insufficient to overcome the government’s security concerns. The Board does not review a case de novo. After reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962). Therefore, the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision under Guideline F is sustainable.

ORDER

The decision of the Judge denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: Michael D. Hipple Michael D. Hipple Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board